Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

NOTEBOOK “ν”

ENGELS, “CAN EUROPE DISARM?”

Friedrich Engels, “Can Europe Disarm?”Nuremberg, 1893. An off-print fromVorwärts(Wörlein & Co.).

Preface: the articles were published in the BerlinVorwärtsinMarch1893 “during the Reichstag debate on the Army Bill” (p. 3).

“A gradual reduction of the term of service by international agreement”—that is “the central point of my thesis” (p. 4)—“a general transition from the standing army to amilitia” (p. 4,idem, p. 3).

(Thus theessentialpoint for Engels = transition to a militia. This N.B.)

The preface is dated: London, March 28, 1893.

§I. For twenty-five years now, Europe has been arming “unprecedentedly”.... “Is it not stupid then to talk of disarmament?” (p. 5).

But the mass of the people ... call ... “for disarmament” “in all countries”.... Is there no way out of the blind alley except through a devastating war?

“I maintain: disarmament, and thereby the guarantee of peace, is possible” (5) ... and Germany has the “power and vocation” to achieve it....

Further, §I describes briefly the transition to universal military service. Its “revolutionary” (p. 6) aspect is that it enlists all men for “national defence”....

There must be a transition to an “international maximum term of service” “with a militia system as the ultimate goal” (7).

§II. The possibility (military and technical) of a short term of service. A long one is unnecessary.

(Excessive parade drill (9), sentry duty (9), batmen (10) and such like idiocy.)

What of the cavalry? A rather longer term would be desirable—if the men had no previous riding training. But much can be done in this respect, too, and besides it should be possible to have “three- or four-year volunteers” (10).

In my life I have seen the collapse of so many vaunted customs, institutions, regulations, including military ones (10)———“that I would advise everyone especially to distrust military ‘expert opinion’” (p. 11, end of §II).

§III. The stupidity of conservatism in military matters, because military technology is especially revolutionary.

The necessity for military training of the youth, gymnastics, etc. (13-14), route marches (in summer), field exercises (14), etc., etc.

§IV. Will other countries adopt it? Austria and Italy—yes

France?—the “decisive country” (15). Will France deceive?

But Germany is much stronger: her population is greater; she has more officers, and that is very important. (“In all previous wars there was a shortage of officers after a few months of military operations” (17))....

§V. Russia? Whether or not Russia will adopt it is unimportant. Unimportant in general; there are no officers.

The Russian soldier is very brave and fights well in a group. Now, however, individual action is required, and here he is of no use at all, and stands no comparison with “Western soldiers” (19).

Embezzlement by government officials, etc., in Russia (20).

Impoverishment of the soil, deforestation, etc. in Russia. Russia’s credit is falling. “It is not France that needs Russia, but rather Russia that needs France.... If she had a little sense, France could obtain from Russia whatever she liked. Instead, official France crawls on her belly before the tsar” (23)....

In France such treatment of the soldiers isimpossible.... The French soldiers must despise the German soldiers when they read of the treatment they are subjected to in the barracks....

§VIII. Will this proposal be adopted?

Germany puts it to Austria, Italy, France. If the lastnamed adopts it, she will not worsen her position, but she will if she rejects it.

“All armies are unusually capable of learning aftergreat defeats” (27)....

“Let us not forget that Great Britain will decide the outcome of the next war” (28)—mastery of the seas, “will simply starve out” (France or Germany).

Germany would gain a great deal by making such a proposal (p. 29)....